I am considering purchasing the SLK Roadster and read the specs. I wanted the 230--but the guys are telling me that I need a V6 for resale purposes. Also want to pick up in Germany & do road rally--probably will need V6 for Autobon. Remainder of the driving will be just around town for pleasure. What recommendations can you give me?
Buying Advice on SLK230 vs SLK320 - Buying Advice
- Thread starter Linda
- Start date
- Status
Buying Advice on SLK230 vs SLK320
It's often said that the 4-cylinder engines are not the best viewpoint to see the 3-pointed star.
Being such a small car the 230 engine should be quite adequate for most purposes, but the point of being a roadster is to have more than adequate performance.
But even performance aside, the 6-cylinder engine will be a lot smoother, quieter and a more relaxed drive.
320 it is then.
It's often said that the 4-cylinder engines are not the best viewpoint to see the 3-pointed star.
Being such a small car the 230 engine should be quite adequate for most purposes, but the point of being a roadster is to have more than adequate performance.
But even performance aside, the 6-cylinder engine will be a lot smoother, quieter and a more relaxed drive.
320 it is then.
Andy
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2001
- Messages
- 1,247
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- West Midlands
- Website
- www.mercedesservicing.com
Buying Advice on SLK230 vs SLK320
Hi
Your boys are giving you incorrect info. You are more likely to get a better price if its a 230 rather than 320V6
due to more people liking the V6 but can't afford to run them. As Arnie has said. The V6 are a lot smother. But are thirstier as well. If its around town 230 should do. I would pop into you local stealership for a test drive.
Regards
Andy @ www.mercedesservicing.com
Hi
Your boys are giving you incorrect info. You are more likely to get a better price if its a 230 rather than 320V6
due to more people liking the V6 but can't afford to run them. As Arnie has said. The V6 are a lot smother. But are thirstier as well. If its around town 230 should do. I would pop into you local stealership for a test drive.
Regards
Andy @ www.mercedesservicing.com
Buying Advice on SLK230 vs SLK320
As Andy says, I think you?ve been misinformed about the 320 being better for resale. I would doubt if there?s much difference but, if anything, the 230 probably has slightly better depreciation figures than the 320.
I have an SLK320. I bought it because I think engines make cars and the 320 is a superb engine. Don?t believe the standing start acceleration figures which seem to show that the 230 is only just a bit slower than the 320. In reality the 320 is a lot quicker because of its significantly greater torque. (The Autocar 50-70 figure of 6.5 seconds gives a pretty good clue as to how much pulling power this engine has. This is quicker than some fairly serious machinery). It?s also smoother and sounds much nicer than the 230.
The running costs are a bit higher, but I wouldn?t have thought they were so much higher as to be a factor in which car you choose. Its fuel consumption is about 10% higher on manufacturer?s figures, but it?s about 10% more powerful. I commute 8 miles each way to work (on B roads and in traffic) and I get 25mpg. On a long trip it does about 35mpg. So it?s not that bad. The servicing costs and insurance costs are very similar (I checked before I bought it). The only running cost so far in 18 months (apart from fuel) has been an A service at £84 (plus £60 for oil ? the engine needs 8 litres of oil). In particular the insurance costs are a lot cheaper than the Boxster 2.7 or the Audi TT 225.
If you want to go barking mad try the AMG32. The Yanks love this car, but then they can afford the crippling fuel consumption.
As Andy says, I think you?ve been misinformed about the 320 being better for resale. I would doubt if there?s much difference but, if anything, the 230 probably has slightly better depreciation figures than the 320.
I have an SLK320. I bought it because I think engines make cars and the 320 is a superb engine. Don?t believe the standing start acceleration figures which seem to show that the 230 is only just a bit slower than the 320. In reality the 320 is a lot quicker because of its significantly greater torque. (The Autocar 50-70 figure of 6.5 seconds gives a pretty good clue as to how much pulling power this engine has. This is quicker than some fairly serious machinery). It?s also smoother and sounds much nicer than the 230.
The running costs are a bit higher, but I wouldn?t have thought they were so much higher as to be a factor in which car you choose. Its fuel consumption is about 10% higher on manufacturer?s figures, but it?s about 10% more powerful. I commute 8 miles each way to work (on B roads and in traffic) and I get 25mpg. On a long trip it does about 35mpg. So it?s not that bad. The servicing costs and insurance costs are very similar (I checked before I bought it). The only running cost so far in 18 months (apart from fuel) has been an A service at £84 (plus £60 for oil ? the engine needs 8 litres of oil). In particular the insurance costs are a lot cheaper than the Boxster 2.7 or the Audi TT 225.
If you want to go barking mad try the AMG32. The Yanks love this car, but then they can afford the crippling fuel consumption.
M
mbzslk230k
Guest
Hi Linda - what did you buy in the end ? Be nice to hear the ending of this story ?
Perhaps this posting will help! http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2462
- Status
Stop looking for the Best Garage!! We are here and have the best advanced solutions for you, at Competitive prices. Put us to test with any issue you may have.